It is important to not let untrue claims go unchallenged, especially on an issue as critical as our fundamental civil liberties. My point that "language rules are irrelevant to the interpretation of the law" addressed the OP I think. I'll look them over when I get time. At the moment though I'm still only four pages into this thread.
I completely agree with you that they should be challenged. It's not only "important". It should be an obligation of every citizen to challenge anything that might threaten civil liberties. But they should be challenged with ARGUMENTS. Not just by repeating "you're wrong... you're wrong...". Doing that actually tends to have the opposite effect. And they also SHOULD be challenged in the appropriate thread. The post you quoted contains links to many topics. Pick your poison! Oh dear God!!! What other way of communication do we have if not language? That is such nonsense... that not even Scalia agreed with you. I'm afraid this statement made me lose all confidence in the likelihood that I could expect a serious debate from you. It means that , not only do you not know much about linguistics, you also know nothing about the Heller decision, which relied HEAVILY on "language rules" Nothing personal.... it's just that it's obvious that you... well.... I should leave it at that, or I could get in trouble with the mods. Anyway, if you still want to comment on the other topics, you have the links. Though I just lost enthusiasm in expecting a serious challenge.
The Heller ruling affirmed that an Individual Right existed, unconnected to any Militia, in any way. The original argument is a red herring.
Well, it is a fact that militiamen have the right to have machineguns and hand grenades in their homes. Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" Surely you don't expect militiamen to be able to repel an invading army without the use of machine guns and hand grenades. I'll agree that thermonuclear weapons are not required for repelling invasions.
I included many arguments. My claim that language rules are unimportant is one such argument. Another such argument is the fact that the Second Amendment requires the government to have a well regulated militia. So as long as the Second Amendment exists, there is still a requirement that we have such a militia. I doubt that he disagreed with my position on the unimportance of language rules. Do you have a cite for this heavy reliance? I'm going to try to get through this thread first. I still haven't gotten further than page 4. But I'll get to them at some point.
Link please otherwise it is opinion not fact citations to support OPINION are done like this https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.c...eapons-firearms/is-it-legal-own-hand-grenades https://www.justice.gov/usao-nh/pr/...d-31-months-purchasing-military-hand-grenades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act Google is your friend
That's not an argument. That's just a demonstration of extreme ignorance about what language is. What arguments could there be after that, since this thread is about the language used in the 2nd A. Completely different topic. Check the links I gave, and see if there is one where it fits. This is what I'm telling you. You haven't even read the Heller decision. However, this is not the thread for that either. I'm just informing you that your argument is not even shared by those who are on your side of the gun debate. You are on your own. As for this thread, I wouldn't waste too much time on it, if I were you. Because this WHOLE thread is about language. All the responses you will receive from me would be about THAT subject. If you believe that there is some other "magical" way besides language for the framers to communicate to us what our laws are, then you would be wasting your time.
Actually I have. But I will confess that it's been awhile. That's OK. I'm more than enough all by myself.
I figured that the US Constitution was so well known that a link wasn't necessary. But here is a link to the text of the US Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ Note Article 1 Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" No. Google is evil. I use DuckDuckGo.
It doesn't matter if it was 20 years. If you don't remember the linguistic arguments in the Heller decision, which make up almost half of the Scalia's arguments... you simply didn't read it. So, don't give me that nonsense.
Heller v US did two things. 1.) It divorced the "militia" wording from the right of all citizens to bear arms. 2.) It established that regulation of firearms belongs to the states, not the federal government. I like that last. I am a new resident of Texas. Texas has used the left wing precedent of ignoring federal immigration laws and establishing "sanctuaries" to establish Texas as a "sanctuary" for the Second Amendment and ignore federal firearm laws. "Constitutional Carry" (ability for any legal gun owner to carry concealed or open without permit or registration) begins in September. Suppressors built in Texas are exempt from federal Class III license restrictions. The Second Amendment is alive and well in Texas!
It had to do with the rights of the individual states to maintain a militia, and also the rights of those states to regulate the militia forces under their command. I think that's what this is about. The wording was intended to be an explanation of the importance of this system, which would help protect state's rights during interpretation of these words in the future. For example, the federal government might have passed laws to prevent the states from excercising control over their militia forces, which would not have been seen as good. This wording was to try to prevent that.
in Cruikshank, the USSC noted that the right was individual in nature and was not dependent on the constitution.
I don't disagree with that, but I think you take that statement out of context. It expressed both an individual right, and a state right. I would argue that the part about "well regulated" was meant to pertain to the state's rights and not individual rights.
It is amusing to me that folks will argue to undermine the Second Amendment over the Militia clause, in spite of Heller, when in fact, the Militia was The People, and they had to bring their own firearms and ammunition.
maybe so but we do know that the phrase, the Right of the people to KBA shall not be infringed is an absolute ban on a federal government-which NEVER was delegated any PROPER power in this area to begin with-from interfering with what arms private citizens choose to own and bear
the gun banning left started trying to mutate the meaning of the second amendment only when the FDR federal government tried to pretend that the commerce clause allowed federal gun control
I couldn't care less 1) the individual right is primary 2) the federal government was never given any PROPER power in this area to start with
Why, after 20 pages of this stuff, have you not asked the OP to support this OPINION. Just curious why you don’t think the OP should be backed by evidence.
why don’t you? The English grammar is pretty standard and the Heller decision is easily Googled besides it is clear this is opinion and not presented as “fact”
